MCP.AI for IDE agents (Cursor, etc.): log in in the browser, copy the access token. Best: add it to this server's config as a header Authorization: Bearer <token> for a permanent, non-expiring connection. Or paste it here for a session-only login: call with { token: "" } after the user pastes, or with no args to get the link.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| token | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it explains the two authentication modes (permanent vs session-only) and that calling with no args returns a link. It does not describe side effects, but annotations already indicate non-destructive, idempotent behavior, and the description is consistent with that.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is somewhat rambling and includes extraneous branding ('MCP.AI for IDE agents') and multiple clauses. It conveys necessary information but lacks a clean, front-loaded structure; it could be organized into clearer steps or bullet points.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one optional parameter and no output schema. The description covers all relevant aspects: how to authenticate, two token-handling options, and the behavior of no-argument calls. It is complete for the tool's complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has only a single optional string parameter 'token' with no description, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly explains that 'token' is a JWT pasted by the user, and that omitting it triggers the login-link retrieval, fully compensating for the 0% schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: authenticating the user by logging in through the browser and obtaining an access token. It provides specific steps and distinguishes the tool's role from siblings by focusing on the authentication flow.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives detailed usage instructions: either configure the token in the server config for permanent access, pass the token as a parameter for session-only login, or call with no arguments to receive the login link. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the guidance is clear and actionable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clear, distinct purpose: authentication, connection status, marketplace management, bug reporting, version info, toolkit state, and the actual process query. No two tools overlap in function, so an agent can reliably select the right one.
Naming conventions are mixed: simple verbs (authenticate, connect), nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info), verb_noun pairs (report_bug, show_version), and a long domain-specific name (tribunal_trt22_processo_consultar). There is no consistent pattern across tools, making it harder to predict tool names.
While 7 tools is a reasonable number, the majority serve platform management rather than the server's stated purpose of TRT22 process consultation. Only one tool directly addresses the domain, making the count feel mismatched—an agent expecting a focused query tool would find the set bloated with unrelated platform utilities.
The domain surface is severely underdeveloped: there is only a single query tool (tribunal_trt22_processo_consultar) with no search, batch, or complementary operations. The platform tools are comprehensive but irrelevant to the domain's completeness. Agents have no way to list processes, check validity, or retrieve metadata, leaving obvious gaps.